ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2018
The State of the Science of Natural Family Planning Fifty Years after
Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge of fertile windows and associated factors among female high school students in Warra Jarso district, Ethiopia using a mixed-methods approach.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Knowledge of the ovulatory cycle and its determinants among women of childbearing age in Haiti: a population-based study using the 2016/2017 Haitian Demographic Health Survey.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Knowledge of Fertile Period and Its Determinants Among Women of Childbearing age in Ethiopia: A Multilevel Analysis Based on 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Anthropological and Methodical Differences of Natural Family Planning and Fertility Awareness-based Methods.The Linacre quarterly · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A one-day meeting of physicians, professional nurses, and scientists actively involved in Natural Family Planning (NFP) research was held to review the state of the science of NFP and consider future priorities. The meeting had four objectives: (i) determine the gaps in research evidence for secure methods of NFP among women of all reproductive categories, (ii) determine the gaps in the research and development of new technology for providing NFP services, (iii) determine the gaps in the research that determine the benefits and challenges with use of NFP among married couples, and (iv) provide prioritized ideas for future research needs from the analysis of evidence gaps from objectives above. This article summarizes the discussion and conclusions drawn from topics reviewed. While much has been accomplished in the fifty years since
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.